(October 24, 2014 at 2:55 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 24, 2014 at 1:53 pm)datc Wrote: Suppose a certain Smith approaches you and tells you that by "God" he means "dog." Would you still disbelieve in the existence of Smith's god?

And if not, then you are no longer an atheist, because you now believe in the existence of at least one god.

Yes, congratulations: if you strip all the pertinent words in a definition of any meaning, and then add on whatever meaning is convenient to your petty little games, then you can make anything mean anything, and thus apply any label to anyone.

You must be very proud of your cheap rhetorical trick.

This is not a trick. It's a reductio ad absurdum of Mister Agenda who wrote:

Quote:YOU propose your particular God out of the potential infinity of imaginable Gods, and then we evaluate your claim.

I did just that, and look at the results. Unpleasant, wasn't it?

There is in philosophy a distinction of vast importance: between meaning and reference. At the very least, meaning is ideal, in the mind; reference is real, out there. Consider a word "dog." It has a meaning, "a highly variable domestic mammal closely related to the gray wolf." And a reference, in fact, numerous references, as there are many dogs existing.

Now think of "unicorn." It also has a meaning: "a mythical animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse, the hind legs of a stag, the tail of a lion, and a single horn in the middle of the forehead." But it has no reference! There are no unicorns out there, despite the fact that the term "unicorn" is perfectly well-defined.

Thus, the term "Morning Star" differs in meaning from the term "Evening Star," yet they pick out the same reference or object in the real world: planet Venus.

In order to call yourself an atheist meaningfully, you need a small number of definite and well-developed concepts of God or meanings of the term "God" for which you deny there is a reference, i.e., which you deny exist.

---

(October 24, 2014 at 2:25 am)Heywood Wrote: DATC if you read this post, consider the following argument.

Premise 1. Intelligence is the ability to navigate a reality.
Premise 2. In order to navigate a reality, that reality must exist.
Premise 3. God is and always has been intelligent.
Conclusion: Therefore God has always existed in a reality.

What does it say about the nature of God?

That's one of the things I'm taking about. Intelligence is part of the concept of God under consideration here; part of what the term "God" means.

But it is possible that this concept has no reference, i.e., that this God does not exist.

---

There is even a specific fallacy associated with conflating the two ideas: the "Fido"-Fido fallacy.

You commit it, as I understand it, if you think that any term that has a meaning must ipso facto also have a reference. "Unicorn" has a clear meaning; therefore, there must be unicorns!

Obviously, this is one of the more ludicrous philosophical fallacies.

(October 24, 2014 at 2:41 pm)Heywood Wrote: Your third alternative is easily dismissible on the basis that there is no reason to believe it to be true(other than to maintain an atheistic world view) and good reason to believe it isn't.

Yes there could be some magical, unobservable, or unknowable brute fact that dictates the universe is the way it is because it can only be the way it is . However, our current understanding of cosmology allows for more coherent models of the universe than you can count. Sting theory alone allows for at least 10^500 different ways the universe could be.

Your third alternative could be right, but the current physics say it aint.

Not quite. There are many possible coherent models but since no-one knows anything of the nature of existence before the current form of our immediate universe, a wide variety of alternatives are admissable and since we know that events in our universe are the result of unintelligent and naturalistic processes, many of which are non-random, it's not such a stretch of the imagination to suggest that other such processes may have been in place to 'cause' the current state of our immediate universe to come in to existence; some 'selection' process which describes which of the possible models can exist.

But that's not the point, I was simply illustrating the false dichotomy that datc was offering and your point reinforces mine.

(October 24, 2014 at 7:31 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(October 23, 2014 at 5:41 pm)datc Wrote: The choice between the forms (essences) of the universe to be created was either random or intelligent.

You're obviously a big fan of the false dichotomy. There's an obvious 3rd alternative: Non-random & unintelligent i.e. our universe could be emergent from a set of fundamental or extra-universal naturalistic functions with no intelligent intervention required.

I don't see why I should repeat myself, but a "choice" can be made only either randomly or intelligently, as per the meaning of the word "choice." A deterministic cause definitely results in a particular effect and is not capable of choosing the effect.

(October 24, 2014 at 7:17 pm)datc Wrote:

(October 24, 2014 at 7:31 am)Ben Davis Wrote: You're obviously a big fan of the false dichotomy. There's an obvious 3rd alternative: Non-random & unintelligent i.e. our universe could be emergent from a set of fundamental or extra-universal naturalistic functions with no intelligent intervention required.

I don't see why I should repeat myself, but a "choice" can be made only either randomly or intelligently, as per the meaning of the word "choice." A deterministic cause definitely results in a particular effect and is not capable of choosing the effect.

Yes, but the word "choice" is these days used in compatibilistic circles to refer to the subjective experience of the resolution of a weighted decision. So it may be inevitable that I choose the Mars Bar rather than the Skittles, but I still experience the back-and-forth that goes on until I finally reach out my hand. This is a problem in theology too, methinks-- to what degree does God have an actual choice, vs. an inevitable one? Could even God have acted otherwise than he has? What is the mechanism by which even God has true liberty?

---

(October 24, 2014 at 3:02 pm)Chuck Wrote: Rhetoric is the cheapest of tricks in any meaningful discussion.

It can be, perhaps, but certainly there's nothing wrong with defining terms.

---

(October 24, 2014 at 1:53 pm)datc Wrote:

(October 23, 2014 at 9:59 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I said that your conception of God as maximally good, and of the universe as a deliberate creation by a good god, are nonsense, because only a fool would consider our universe maximally good. I'm pretty sure I never said "God does not exist."

That's a start, but in order to say "I don't know if God exists," you still need to understand the meaning of the term "God." If you think the Christian conception of God has no reference, yet still remain an agnostic, then you need at least one different conception of God of whose existence you are unsure.

When asked if "x" exists, I must answer that I do not know, because "x" is not adequately defined for me. Unlike many here, I would not default to the position that "x" doesn't exist before being presented, because I need a well-formed idea to test before testing it with any kind of observations or rational treatment.

I'd declare as a gnostic atheist about Sky Daddy watching me disapprovingly if I watch Asian porn when my wife's away. That Biblical judge is not compatible with any sensible idea bout the grandeur of a universe-creating being.

I'd declare as a gnostic theist if God was defined as "that which transcends paradox and allows the universe to exist," since I'm aware of some paradoxes, and of the universe's existence, although more on that in a moment. I'd declare as an agnostic deist if asked about my emotional hunches about whether any intelligent being was involved in the creation in the universe, or an agnostic atheist if asked to make an intellectual evalution.

I think your process in this thread is to define God in terms that are rational, i.e. "that which transcends paradox and allows the universe to exist." But in my opinion, this is a bad definition-- I do not accept as big-G Christian "God" any definition which does not involve an active intelligence and an ongoing interaction with humanity-- this redefinition is a semantic trick to anthropormorphize something which does not necessarily need to be imbued with the property of sentience. And whatever logical gymnastics you attempt, I will not accept the idea of an interactive God with whom I have not interacted, or of an intelligent God whose intelligence cannot be observed except by those who already believe.

(October 24, 2014 at 7:31 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Yes, but the word "choice" is these days used in compatibilistic circles to refer to the subjective experience of the resolution of a weighted decision. So it may be inevitable that I choose the Mars Bar rather than the Skittles, but I still experience the back-and-forth that goes on until I finally reach out my hand.

That's cool; let then "making a choice intelligently" generally mean the act of contemplation in the intellect and weighing in the will (for expected utility) of the alternatives. The choice may well be deterministic still, and compatibilism may be true, but it's a different type of determination than a physical cause.

So, instead of "A deterministic cause definitely results in a particular effect..." I should've said "A physical cause..."

(October 24, 2014 at 6:35 pm)datc Wrote: This is not a trick. It's a reductio ad absurdum of Mister Agenda who wrote:

Quote:YOU propose your particular God out of the potential infinity of imaginable Gods, and then we evaluate your claim.

Oh, so you're being overly literal for the sake of being an irritant, then.

I think there's a pretty clear subtext in Mister A's post that, in order for an honest and effective conversation to take place, it's preferable that the claimant actually believe the things that they are saying. If you're willing to take the dishonest and ineffective route then yes, congratulations, I am not an atheist if you're willing to define "god" as "dog." But you don't actually believe that a dog is god, and so to actually proffer that idea for discussion would mean you are lying.

I don't know why you'd think that coming into a theological debate with a lie, especially when the god you do believe in commands you not to do that, is appealing to you.

Additionally, the route you're taking refutes itself; if you're willing to dismiss commonly understood ideas about gods in order to win a point then the same can equally be done to you. If you define god as dog, then I define christianity as orca whale and bam: I'm not an atheist and you're not a christian. But I don't know where that gets us, and I think we both know it doesn't end anywhere useful.

What's so frustrating about this is that Mister A's position, where god claims are evaluated as they come in, rather than being in the possession of a pre-existing claim, is done to be both honest and polite to theists. You probably have your own god claim, would you really want us speaking for you and assuming, rather than you just telling us what you believe so that claim can be assessed on its own merits?

Why would "aha, you don't want to tell me what I believe, therefore you're wrong!" be a position you want to take?

(October 24, 2014 at 8:11 pm)Esquilax Wrote: What's so frustrating about this is that Mister A's position, where god claims are evaluated as they come in, rather than being in the possession of a pre-existing claim, is done to be both honest and polite to theists.

A theist needs to have a definite concept of God in whose existence he believes.

But an atheist, I presume, is not a machine built for shooting down random theistic concepts of God.

He is a human being.

As a result, he can't just sit there waiting for a random theist to inform him of his personal idea of God (which may well be "dog") and then get all excited and try to refute it.

The atheist is not spared the necessity of coming up with his own full-featured worldview. He must know what he believes and what he does not believe. He needs to articulate for himself a finite personally significant number of concepts of God and prove that none of those exist in reality.

The burden of proof is on both of us.

(October 24, 2014 at 7:11 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: Not quite. There are many possible coherent models but since no-one knows anything of the nature of existence before the current form of our immediate universe, a wide variety of alternatives are admissable and since we know that events in our universe are the result of unintelligent and naturalistic processes, many of which are non-random, it's not such a stretch of the imagination to suggest that other such processes may have been in place to 'cause' the current state of our immediate universe to come in to existence; some 'selection' process which describes which of the possible models can exist.

But that's not the point, I was simply illustrating the false dichotomy that datc was offering and your point reinforces mine.

The third option you presented is easily dismissed for good reason....the necessary process that allows the third option is an imagined one that contradicts our current physics. That leaves just two options remaining. There is no false dichotomy.

---

(October 24, 2014 at 8:33 pm)datc Wrote: The burden of proof is on both of us.

Atheists have a burden of proof? That's blasphemy in these circles. Chas is going to ape shit when he see this.

Atheist don't except your claim of God. You make the claim, you have the burden of proof.

Know why the atheist has no burden of proof?

Because we're not trying to prove anything.